[2] In a case where the site of river appurtenances under the River Act becomes a river area and becomes a State-owned property, whether the owner should compensate for the loss incurred without any explicit compensation provision

[2] Under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Dec. 31, 1984), even though there is no explicit compensation provision regarding the site of river appurtenances under Article 2 (1) 2 (b) of the former River Act, since it became a river area along with a reservoir and excluding a river area and as long as it became a State-owned, the loss suffered by the owner shall be compensated, and there is no reasonable ground for the method of compensation different from the river basin and excluding it, it is reasonable to view that the management agency which constructed the bank before July 20 of the same year, which was promulgated by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971, should by analogy apply Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the former River Act to the above amended river Act, the owner of the bank site should compensate for its loss.

Article 2 (1) 1 of the River Act is a site for the embankment of a river under Article 2 (1) 1 of the same Act, where the management agency under the proviso of Article 11 of the same Act constructed a bank on the ground, the site for the embankment naturally becomes a river area under the provisions of the Act even though there is no designation disposition by the management agency (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da40051 delivered on November 4, 1994). Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the River Act amended by Act No. 3782 delivered on December 31, 1984 provides that "the land was excluded from the river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the River Act before this Act enters into force, it shall be excluded from the river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (a) of the same Act, or if the land was excluded from the river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (2) of the same Act, it shall be excluded from the river area under Article 9 (2) of the River Act.

In the same purport, the court below recognized the fact that the land of this case owned by the plaintiff was incorporated into a river area, which is the land site of the Do governor, which is directly managed by the defendant, prior to the enforcement of the River Act promulgated by Act No. 2292, which is the representative of the defendant, prior to the enforcement of the River Act, and it is legitimate that the defendant should apply Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the above amended River Act mutatis mutandis to compensate the plaintiff for its loss, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the River Act. There is no ground

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)